Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Rochford to the King March [should be ], Geo. III III . As to Mansfield,
Shelburne to Chatham Apr. , Pitt IV .
Speeches in opposition to the bill in the House of Lords by Lord Camden, the
Duke of Richmond, Shelburne, and others March , , Force I ; Burke to
N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. Apr. , Burke II ; and Shelburne to Chatham Apr. ,
Pitt IV –.
Passage of the bill by the Lords without a division on March , and the King’s
assent the next day, Force I . On March , thirty-one “Natives of America,
then in London” headed by William Lee, vainly presented a petition to the King
to suspend his assent to the bill, same –.
Shelburne wrote Chatham March , , that Dartmouth had “yesterday” told
him of “his determination to cover America from the present storm,...even to
repealing the act [the Townshend Act duty on tea], which I urged to him as the
most expedient step the first moment he could bring his colleagues to listen to
such a measure,” Pitt IV . Dartmouth wrote John Thornton Feb. , that “he
would be thought as mad as they [the Bostonians] if he were to say a word of re-
pealing the tea duty,” Dartmouth () , and I have found no evidence that he
proposed this.
Dartmouth to Joseph Reed of Philadelphia July , , concerning the Intoler-
able Acts of indicates no disapproval of any of them, Reed Reed I –; and
the only evidence I have found of his even attempting to soften ministerial mea-
sure against the colonies is in the King to North March , , mentioning Dart-
mouth’s aversion to a proposed bill “for trying future Offenders [in Mass.] in
Britain,” and of “wanting in lieu of that, that Offenders of that particular province
should be amenable to the Courts of Justice of Nova Scotia,” Geo. III III –.
Franklin to William Franklin July , , and March , , concerning Dart-
mouth, Smyth Franklin VI , . Arthur Lee advised Reed in a letter of Feb. ,
, not to expect much good from Dartmouth’s displacement of Hillsborough
as Secretary of State for the colonies, since he was unlikely to “attempt any thing
in our favour that will hazard his place,” Reed Reed I . To similar effect, William
Bollan to James Bowdoin Feb. , , Bowdoin–Temple Papers .
Burke wrote the N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. May , , “many Gentlemen who at
first supported the Bill against that Town [Boston] asserted that they had been
some way led to imagine that Ministry would propose the repeal of the Tea Duty;
and they gave way in that Instance in hopes that a Measure of Lenity would be
adopted, to qualify the Harshness of the Interdict under which the Act laid the un-
happy Town of Boston,” Burke II .
Fuller’s motion in the House of Commons Apr. , , for repeal of the Town-
shend Act duty on tea, North’s opposition; Burke’s speech, and proceedings on
this motion, Force I –; North to the King Apr. , with enclosed list of
speakers, Geo. III III ; London Chronicle Apr. . (Burke’s speech in favor of the
motion is reprinted in Burke Speeches –.) Dartmouth’s statement on March
to Shelburne indicating his favoring repeal of the Townshend Act (Pitt IV ),
quoted in note above, may have led to the misunderstanding as to the Min-
istry’s position.
Gage’s statement to the King Feb. , , that four regiments would suffice to
deal with “any disturbance,” the King to Lord North, Feb. , reporting a talk he
had just had with Gage.
Dartmouth to the Admiralty Apr. , , ordering transportation of the Fourth,
Fifth, Thirty-eighth, and Forty-third Regiments to Boston, Donoughue British Pol-
itics n. and sources cited therein.
Gen. Gage’s commission as Governor Apr. , , Col. Soc. Public. II –. The
decision to send Gage to Boston as Governor of Mass. in place of Hutchinson was
made as early as March , Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately summarized in
Dartmouth () . Letters from Under Secretary of State Pownall to Dart-
mouth Aug. , , and , , disclose that consideration had then been given
for Hutchinson to come to England, but apparently for consultation rather than
replacement, Dartmouth () .
Gage’s initial commission as Governor was substantially the same as those issued
to his immediate predecessors, same – passim, but on or about Apr. , his
commission was amended by a special commission giving him power to pardon
persons convicted of murder or treason, instead of the usual power merely to sus-
pend sentence with final action reserved to the King, Dartmouth to Gage Apr. ,
Gage II –.
The customary instruction as to requirement of concurrence of the Council for
declaration of martial law in any colony, Labaree Instructions I . The authority
given to Gage singly to declare martial law is in his instructions dated Apr. , ,
C.O.::–. However, Dartmouth to Gage Apr. qualifies this by stating,
“I do not mean that any Constitutional power or authority vested in them should
be set aside by these instructions,” Gage II .
Attorney-General Edward Thurlow and Solicitor-General Alexander Wedder-
burn advised the Cabinet at a meeting on Apr. , , attended by Gage, that the
Governor of a colony in his capacity as first civil magistrate could call on the mil-
itary for assistance in quelling disturbances, Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately
summarized in Dartmouth () . Dartmouth wrote Gage June confirming
this opinion, Gage II . For further details, Donoughue British Politics –.
Dartmouth to Gage Apr. , , enclosing a copy of the law officers’ opinion of
Feb. concerning treason at Boston and instructing him to try to secure evidence
for indictments against “the principal actors,” the trials to be in Mass. and not in
England, Gage II –.
Dartmouth to Gage Apr. , , enclosing Gage’s commission and instruction in
a covering letter for his further guidance, same II –.
Cabinet resolutions of March , , for a bill to alter the constitution of Mass.,
Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately summarized in Dartmouth () .
Chapter
Pertinent letters and other papers from Feb., , to Jan., , by the American
Customs Board as to the need for changes to secure British control of Massachu-
setts are published in Wolkins “Liberty” –, ; others, unpublished, are
cited and described in Barrow Trade –.
Gen. Thomas Gage, who succeeded Sir Jeffery Amherst as acting Commander-
in-Chief of the British army in North America in Nov., , and titular coman-
der a year later, retained this post until October, , Alden Gage – passim.
Gage’s older brother, William, Lord Gage, was a viscount in the Irish peerage and
a member of the British House of Commons –; Gen. Gage’s wife, Mar-
garet Kemble, was the daughter of Peter Kemble and Gertrude Bayard of New
Jersey, same –, n. The jurisdiction of his command is described in same –;
Labaree Royal Government –; Carter “Commander in Chief” –.
Lord Barrington, a viscount in the Irish peerage and a member of the British
House of Commons –, wrote his friend Andrew Mitchell in March, ,
of his “invariable rule to ask nothing, to refuse nothing...and do my best wher-
ever I am placed,” Namier Eng. . He was Secretary at War, –; Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, –; Treasurer of the Navy, –; and Secre-
tary at War again, July, , to Dec., .
Initially a protégé of the Duke of Newcastle, after Newcastle’s fall from power in
, Barrington allied himself with no political party. His political career from
then on was one of the “King’s Friends.” He assured the King in that he
would not accept any office “which did not come directly from his Majesty and
was not held solely under him,” Namier and Brooke Commons –, and his con-
duct from to was consistent with this statement.
Gage to Barrington June , , as to acting resolutely to “Quash...at a Blow”
the threatened revolt of Boston and Mass. as a whole, Gage II .
Gage to Barrington June , , as to the importance of vigorous measures
against Mass. to “damp the spirit of Insurrection” elsewhere in the colonies. Ear-
lier letters (Jan. , , and March , ) from Gage to Barrington had spo-
ken in similar vein of the necessity of “spirited conduct” to keep the colonists de-
pendent on Great Britain and recommended the prevention of emigration to the
colonies, thus ensuring that “our new Settlements should be peopled from the old
ones, which would be a means to thin them and put it less in their power to do
Mischief,” same II , .
Blackstone Commentaries IV defines impeachment, in the case of commoners,
as a proceeding for alleged “high misdeameanors” brought by “articles of im-
peachment,...a kind of bill of indictment found by the house of commons and
afterwards tried by the lords.” The punishment to be inflicted if the accused were
found guilty seems to have been at the discretion of Parliament.
Those “who signed the Letters of Convention,” mentioned in the text
—the Mass.
Convention of
—were five selectmen of Boston: Joseph Jackson, John Rud-
dock, John Hancock, John Rowe, and Samuel Pemberton, Gov. Francis Bernard
to an unidentified correspondent Dec. , , Barrington–Bernard Corresp. .
All Mass. towns, including Boston, were governed by selectmen elected by popu-
lar vote at town meetings. In recommending a corporation form of government,
Gage apparently contemplated a Mayor with considerable powers, appointed by
the Crown-appointed Governor of the colony, as, for example, in New York.
Gage to Barrington May , , recommending impeachment of a number of
persons in Mass. and changes in the form of government of the province and of
Boston, Gage II –.
Appointment by the Crown of members of the provincial Council in all the royal
colonies except Mass., Labaree Royal Government –.
The Mass. Charter of named the members of the first Council and provided
for the annual election of the Council thereafter “by the Generall Court...newly
chosen,” Mass. Acts I , . The “Generall Court” consisted of two bodies, the
House of Representatives and the Council, both annually elected. Since the only
existing Council at the time of choosing a new Council was the outgoing Council,
the practice was to elect the new Council by joint ballot of the incoming House
and the outgoing Council.
The Mass. Charter of gave the Crown-appointed Governor “the Negative
voice” in “all Elections” by the general court, same . This power had been used
with great restraint (with one exception) before , but in that year, Gov.
Bernard negatived six; in , five; in , six; and in , eleven of those
named to the Council; Whitmore Mass. Civil List .
Gage to Barrington Sept. , , suggesting changes in the form of government
in Mass., Gage II . A few months earlier (July ) referring to a recent attack on
the home of one of the members of the American Customs Board, which had
driven the Board to take refuge again at Castle William, Gage had written Bar-
rington that “a very considerable Force, and that Force empower’d to act” was re-
quired to preserve Mass. from “Anarchy,” same II . The details of this attack are
given in Ann Hulton to Mrs. Adam Lightbody July , Hulton Letters –.
Gage to Barrington Nov. , , as to the colonists in general being mere bul-
lies, Gage II .
The extensive unrest in England from to mentioned in the text is de-
scribed in detail in Rudé Wilkes and Liberty –, the Falkland Island controversy
of – in Gipson Brit. Empire XI –. The letters of Horace Walpole to Sir
Horace Mann from Dec., , to Dec., , and accompanying footnotes con-
tain useful information on both matters, Lewis Walpole XXIII – passim.
Gage to Barrington Apr. , , and Feb. , , pointing out that the time was
now ripe for Great Britain to establish its supremacy over the colonies and the un-
wisdom of yielding to any colonial demands, Gage II , –.
Barrington to Gage Apr. , , saying he had shown Hillsborough his recent
letter (Gage to Barrington March , , quoted in note above, same II )
recommending that the colonies be kept as weak as possible, Gage Papers,
Clements Lib. Hillsborough wrote Gage Oct. , , in a letter marked “Private
& secret,” “I seldom trouble you with private Letters because I have all the bene-
fit of your Correspondence with our Common Friend Lord Barrington,” Gage II
–.
Barrington to Gage Sept. , , stating that he had shown extracts of Gage’s
recent letter opposing establishment of a new colony on the Ohio to Lords North
and Dartmouth and the President of the Council, Gage Papers, Clements Lib.
The letter thus shown was Gage to Barrington Aug. , , Gage II –, deal-
ing with the much discussed Vandalia project, in which Benjamin Franklin was in-
volved. The account of this in Sosin Whitehall and the Wilderness, – is partic-
ularly full and good.
Barrington to Gage Sept. , , stating that the King “sees most of your private
Letters to me,” Gage Papers, Clements Lib. The King also probably was among
those referred to by Barrington in writing Gage Nov. , , that he communi-
cated “the intelligence which comes to me in your private letters...where it will
do good,” same. Unlike his private letters, Gage’s official letters (Gage I –, II
–) deal almost exclusively with Indian and non-political affairs.
Bernard’s wife was a first cousin of Barrington. The latter wrote Bernard Feb. ,
, that he had informed Hillsborough, “the most intimate friend I have in the
world,” of his “connexions with and good opinion of” Bernard, Barrington–Bernard
Corresp. .
The controversy between Bernard and the Mass. Legislature over its refusal to re-
elect a number of Mass. officials, appointed by the Crown or the Governor, to the
Mass. Council and Bernard’s refusal to approve those elected in their stead can
be followed in his messages to, and replies from, the Mass. House of Representa-
tives and Council in and , Bradford, Mass. Papers – passim and in
Bernard’s letters from to to various officials in the Harvard College Lib.
Bernard’s complaints of the failure of the Mass. Council to support him on vari-
ous occasions from to are in his letter books referred to in note above
(many of which are printed in Select Letters . . . by Governor Bernard [Boston, ],
Letters to Hillsborough [Boston, ], Letters to Ministry [Boston, ], Barrington–
Bernard Corresp., and elsewhere). He was particularly incensed over the Council’s
refusal, referred to in Chapter , to provide barracks for the British troops sent to
Boston in .
Bernard to Hillsborough Sept. , , Letters to Ministry , to Barrington Oct.
, , and March , May , and June , , and to an unidentified corre-
spondent Dec. , , Barrington–Bernard Corresp. , , –, –, ad-
vocated amendment of the Mass. charter to provide for appointment by the King
of the members of the Mass. Council.
Bernard to an unidentified correspondent Dec. , , recommending revoca-
tion of the commissions of all justices of the peace in Suffolk County, Mass., of
which Boston was the county seat, and appointment of a new set of justices by the
Governor or the King, same –.
Bernard to Hillsborough Sept. , , suggesting that grand juries, then popu-
larly elected, be impaneled hereafter by county sheriffs who were appointed by
the Governor, Letters to Hillsborough –. Bernard made a similar recommenda-
tion to the Committee on Plantation Affairs of the Privy Council at a hearing in
London June and , , Acts P.C. V –.
For Thomas Hutchinson’s life and political career in Mass. to , Freiberg “Pre-
lude to Purgatory: Thomas Hutchinson –” (Ph.D. dissertation Brown U.
Lib.), “Hutchinson...–,” “Hutchinson and the Currency,” and “Gover-
nor Hutchinson”; Hosmer Hutchinson; the sketch of Hutchinson in Shipton Har-
vard Graduates VIII –; typed copies of his letters in the Mass. Archives at the
Mass. Hist. Soc.; and Hutchinson Hist. of Mass. vol. III and Diary and Letters I.
Hutchinson to Richard Jackson Apr. , , as to the necessity of requiring the
colonists to “explicitly acknowledge a general subjection” to Parliament, Mass.
Arch. XXVI .
Hutchinson to John Pownall Apr. , , and to Hillsborough April , as to the
necessity that the colonies be “kept in awe by a power superior to them” and re-
ceive a “check from the Supreme Authority,” same XXVI , XXV –.
Hutchinson wrote again in similar vein to Hillsborough Oct. concerning the ne-
cessity of action by Parliament to suppress the non-importation “confederacies”
Oct. , , same XXV , printed in part in Hosmer Hutchinson –.
Hutchinson to Pownall July , , hoping Parliament would make “thorough
work” at its next session in punishing the ringleaders of the colonial non-importation
agreements, Mass. Arch. XXVI , and Hutchinson to Hillsborough Jan. ,
, urging determined action by Parliament to secure the colonists’ recognition
of its supreme authority, Remembrancer for Part I –.
Hutchinson to Pownall Apr. , , suggesting that Parliament pass an act mak-
ing it high treason to deny, in writing or print, the validity of acts of Parliament,
Mass. Arch. XXVII –.
Hutchinson to Pownall Oct. , , Apr. and , , and May , , same
XXVI , XXVII –, XXVII –, and to Hillsborough Oct. , ,
same XXV –, as to Boston town meetings.
Hutchinson to Hillsborough Oct. , , as to juries in Mass., same XXV –.
Hutchinson to Hillsborough concerning the Mass. Council, Oct. [no day], ,
same XXVII – and Jan. , , Remembrancer for Part I –. Many
other letters from Hutchinson to persons in public life in England urging exertion
of increased authority are cited in Bancroft History VI –.
Chapter
Benjamin Franklin, who had been in London as Agent for the Pennsylvania As-
sembly since , was now () also London Agent for Georgia, New Jersey, and
the Massachusetts Assembly, Kammen Agents .
Franklin to Thomas Cushing Dec. , , enclosing letters of Thomas Hutchin-
son, Andrew Oliver, and others to Thomas Whately, Smyth Franklin VI –.
The date is from same V .
Hutchinson’s letters from June , , to Oct. , , Oliver’s from May ,
, to Aug. , , and Charles Paxton’s of June , , are in Mauduit
Franklin –. The fact that they were written to, or were in the possession of,
Thomas Whately is known from a speech of Alexander Wedderburn Jan. , ,
same –. As to Whately, who had died in May, , and his political career and
connection with George Grenville, sketch of Whately in D.N.B.
The mystery of how Franklin got the letters is discussed in Knollenberg “Franklin
and the Hutchinson Letters” –.
The damaging letters of Hutchinson quoted in Chapter did not come to light
until , Warren–Adams , n.; French First Year –. Hutchinson’s injunc-
tions to English correspondents in several of the letters quoted in Chapter , and
others cited in Bancroft History VI , to keep his reports secret, evidently had
been faithfully observed.
Hutchinson’s letters quoted in the text, Mauduit Franklin – passim. In his letter
of Oct. , , Hutchinson enjoined Whately to “keep secret everything I write,
until we are in a more settled state...,” same .
Hutchinson’s letter of Jan. , , as to impracticability of distant colonies en-
joying “all the liberty of the parent state...,” same . (Freiberg “Letter”
points out differences between the published copy of this letter and the copy in
Hutchinson’s letter book; but the two do not differ in substance.)
As brought out in Chapter , Parliament had prohibited the colonists to import
manufactures of continental Europe except by way of Great Britain, had re-
stricted the manufacture of felt, hats, and steel in the colonies, and presumably
would impose such further restrictions on colonial manufacturing as might be
needed to discourage the development of other colonial manufactures.
Oliver to Whately May , , quoted in the text, Mauduit Franklin –. An-
other suggestion in Oliver’s letters was for the King to create “an order of Patri-
cians or Esquires” in the colony, because at present there was no way “to put a
man of fortune above the common level and exempt him from being chosen by
the people into the lower offices, but his being appointed a Justice of the Peace”
which “is frequently done when there is no expectation of his undertaking the
Trust, and has its inconveniences,” same .
Charles Paxton to Whately June , , recommending the sending of two or
three British regiments to Boston, immediately, same . As noted in Chapter ,
Paxton was the most unpopular member of the unpopular American Customs
Board even before this letter of his was made public.
Franklin to Cushing Dec. , , imposing the restriction quoted in the text on
the use of the enclosed letters. Smyth Franklin VI –.
Petition of the Mass. House to the King for the removal of Hutchinson and Lieut.
Governor Oliver, June , , Mauduit Franklin –. The date is from Cush-
ing S. Adams III –. The petition was preceded by a resolution of the House,
June , denouncing Hutchinson, Oliver, and Paxton, Bradford Mass. Papers –
. Also the House and the Mass. Council jointly adopted a letter to Lord Dart-
mouth June , denouncing generally all those who had frustrated efforts to re-
store harmony between Great Britain and the colonies, same –.
Cushing to Franklin June , , enclosing the petition and other papers. Sparks
Franklin VIII –. In this letter Cushing also instructed Franklin to present ear-
lier petitions from the House to the King concerning payment by the Crown of
the Governor’s and judges’ salaries, which Franklin had withheld. As to these ear-
lier petitions and Franklin’s reasons for withholding them, Franklin to Cushing
Sept. and Dec. , , and June and July , , Smyth Franklin V , –
, VI –, .
Cushing’s instruction to employ Arthur Lee as counsel, quoted in the text, same
. Lee, a Virginian, younger brother of Richard Henry Lee, had studied law in
England, but was not admitted to the English bar until , sketch of Lee in D.A.B.
Franklin to Cushing Aug. , , acknowledging receipt of the Petition for the
removal of Hutchinson and Oliver and saying he had sent it to Dartmouth, Smyth
Franklin VI . Franklin’s letter of Aug. to Dartmouth enclosing the Petition is
in Mauduit Franklin .
John Pownall to the Clerk of the Privy Council Dec. , , transmitting the Peti-
tion and stating it was to “be laid before his Majesty in his Privy Council,” same .
Franklin to Cushing Jan. , , as to a probable hearing on the Petition by “a
committee of the Privy Council, and that I should have notice to be heard in sup-
port of it,” Smyth Franklin VI .
The Privy Council’s Committee for Plantation [colonial] Affairs and the invari-
able acceptance by the Privy Council (King in Council) of its recommendations,
Knollenberg Origin –, . (The Committee is sometimes referred to as the
Committee “on” or “of” Plantation Affairs.)
The O.E.D. describes the “Cockpit” as “the part of the Treasury buildings which
fronts Whitehall,” so-called because located on a former cockpit built by Henry
VIII.
Franklin to Cushing Feb. , , stating “on Saturday the th of January...I re-
ceived notice...that the Lords of the Committee for Plantation Affairs, would,
on the Tuesday following at twelve, meet at the Cockpit to take into consideration
the petition referred to them by his Majesty,” and that, having then appeared, he
secured a postponement until Jan. , Smyth Franklin VI –.
Franklin to Cushing Feb. , , stating that Arthur Lee was ineligible to act as
counsel, “not yet being called to the bar,” same .
Franklin to Cushing Feb. , , stating, “I employed a solicitor” who “retained
Mr. [ John] Dunning and Mr. John Lee,” same . Thomas Life is identified as the
solicitor by Franklin’s statement of the expenses of the hearing, M.H.S. Proc.
() , , , . Life was an experienced solicitor, Kammen Agents, under
“Life” in the index, ; Sosin Agents , n., , , –, –. As to the
distinguished careers of Dunning (later Lord Ashburton), who had been Solicitor-
General in the Grafton administration, and John Lee, biographical sketches of
them in D.N.B.
Franklin’s initial plan for supporting the Petition at the hearing and, with the as-
sistance of Arthur Lee, preparing a brief for this, Franklin to Cushing Feb. , ,
Smyth Franklin VI –. (William Bollan, London Agent for the Mass. Coun-
cil, who had earlier collaborated with Franklin in connection with the Petition,
did not, so far as is known, collaborate in preparing the brief. As to Bollan’s ear-
lier collaboration, Franklin to Cushing Feb. , same –, , and Bollan to
James Bowdoin Feb. , Bowdoin–Temple Papers –.)
The decision of Dunning and John Lee as to method of supporting the Petition,
quoted in the text, Smyth Franklin VI .
Franklin to Cushing Feb. , , as to the attendance at the hearing on Jan. ,
same –. Franklin thought there had been a “preconcerted” effort to ensure
a large unfriendly gathering “for all the courtiers were invited,” same .
Edmund Burke, London Agent for the N.Y. Assembly, wrote the Assembly’s Com-
mittee of Correspondence, Feb. , “The Council was the fullest I have ever
known. It did not seem absolutely necessary from the Nature of the Case that
there should be any public Trial whatsoever. But it was obviously intended to
give all possible weight and solemnity to the decision.” The members of the
Privy Council present at the hearing are listed in Mauduit Franklin . They in-
clude Dartmouth and most of the other members of the Cabinet, but not Lord
North.
The quotation in the text of the argument for the Petition is from Burke to the N.Y.
Committee of Correspondence, Feb. , , Burke II . Burke was not a mem-
ber of the Privy Council, but as London Agent for the N.Y. Assembly he presum-
ably made it a point to attend a hearing of great interest to all the colonies.
The hearing before the Privy Council’s Committee for Plantation Affairs, includ-
ing Alexander Wedderburn’s speech at the hearing, is reported in Burke to the
N.Y. Committee of Correspondence Feb. , , same –; Mauduit Franklin
–; Franklin to Cushing Feb. , Smyth Franklin VI –.
Mauduit Franklin – quotes Wedderburn as saying, “the whole foundation of
this Address rests upon events of five and six years standing and this makes it nec-
essary to take up the history of them from their original. In the beginning of the
year ****. My Lords, after having gone through the history of this people for
the last ten years I now come to consider the argument upon that footing my
learned friends [Dunning and Lee] have chosen to place it.” But, as indicated by
the asterisks, the “history” as related by Wedderburn is omitted.
Franklin to Cushing Feb. , , describing Wedderburn’s speech as quoted in
the text, Smyth Franklin VI .
The recommendation Jan. , , of the Committee for Plantation Affairs,
quoted in the text, that the Petition be dismissed, Mauduit Franklin .
The Privy Council, with the King present, met Feb. , , and dismissed the Pe-
tition, same , –.
Wedderburn’s attack on Franklin at the hearing on the Massachusetts Petition,
Jan. , , same –. Franklin’s dismissal Jan. from his office of Joint
Deputy of Postmaster for the British colonies in North America north of North
Carolina, Smyth Franklin VI . A copy of Franklin’s commission dated Sept. ,
, is in Franklin XII –.
Chapter
Cabinet resolution of March , , as to bill to alter the constitution of Mass.
immediately, Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately summarized in Dartmouth
() .
Cabinet resolution of Feb. , , that “Leave to bring in a Bill to alter the Con-
stitution of the province of Massachusetts Bay,...be, according to what shall be
judged most advisable hereafter, either put forward in the present Session or sus-
pended till the next, in order to give an Opportunity to the General Court [Mass.
Legislature] to shew cause...why such an alteration should not be made,”
Dartmouth Pap. II –, inadequately summarized in Dartmouth () .
Thomas Hutchinson to an unidentified correspondent July , , quoting Lord
North’s explanation to him of the Cabinet’s decision as to the Mass. Regulating
bill, Hutchinson Diary I –. Hutchinson had suggested the advisability of giv-
ing Mass. the opportunity to be heard on the bill because “perhaps the appre-
hensions of such an Act might produce such a change of conduct as to render it
unnecessary,” and because even if the act were later passed, the opportunity to be
heard might make the act “less grievous,” same .
North’s outline of the proposed Mass. Regulating bill to the House of Commons
March , , and vote for leave to bring in the proposed bill, Force I –.
North was strongly supported by Lord George Germain, same I –. From now
on Germain was a leading proponent of coercive measures against the colonies.
For the background of his appointment to succeed Lord Dartmouth as Secretary
of State in and his conduct of the war until , Brown The American Secretary
. . . Germain –.
North’s introduction of the Mass. Regulating bill Apr. , , Force I –. For
convenience, I base my summary on the act as passed, rather than on the bill. The
act fills in dates and other blanks (e.g., number of councilors) in the bill as intro-
duced, and is arranged differently, but does not differ substantially, from the bill,
a printed copy of which is among the papers in the Record Office, House of Lords.
Unless otherwise noted, my later references to provisions of the bills for the Intol-
erable Acts of are to the acts, rather than the bills.
Provision in the Mass. Charter of Oct. , , for election of members of the
Mass. Council, Mass. Acts I . Sec. of Mass. Regulating Act provided that be-
ginning Aug. , , all members of the Council were to be appointed by the
King. They might be either inhabitants or proprietors of land within Mass.
Provision in the Mass. Charter of for appointment of judges, justices of the
peace, sheriffs, etc., by the Governor “with the advice and consent of the Coun-
cil,” Mass. Acts I . Secs. , , and of Mass. Regulating Act gave the Governor
power to appoint judges, justices of the peace, sheriffs, etc., without the advice and
consent of the Council.
John Adams had clashed with William Brattle in a newspaper controversy in the
Boston Gazette in –, Adams Works III –, over whether judges in Mass.
had tenure during good behavior and, if not, whether they might be removed with-
out consent of the Mass. Council. The Mass. Regulating Act left unclear the tenure
of judges already in office, but provided in secs. and that judges thereafter ap-
pointed were removable at pleasure without consent of the Council
—those of the
inferior courts by the Governor, those of the superior court by the King.
Chap. of Mass. Acts of as to calling and the powers of town meetings,
Mass. Acts I –. Sec. of Mass. Regulating Act contained the restrictions as to
town meetings described in the text.
Chap. of Mass. Acts of –, same I , as to choosing members of grand
juries and Chap. of Mass. Acts of – extended by Chap. of Mass.
Acts of –, same IV –, , as to choosing members of petty juries.
Secs. – of Mass. Regulating Act provided for new method of selecting jurors.
As to Thomas Pownall, Gov. of Mass. –, M.P. –, and, until ,
a supporter of conciliatory measures, sketch in D.A.B. and Namier and Brooke
Commons II –; Pownall Pownall; Schutz Pownall. Shy “Pownall” – gives
an admirable analysis of the first five editions (–) of Pownall’s most im-
portant work, The Administration of the Colonies.
Speakers in the House of Commons opposing the Mass. Regulating bill Apr. and
May , , Force I –, –; North to the King Apr. and May , Geo. III
III , ; Edmund Burke to N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. May , Burke II –.
Division on the bill May , , on motion for its third and final reading in the
Commons, resulting in a vote of to in favor of the bill, and passage of the
bill on May , Force I ; Geo. III III . For the progress of the bill through
the House March to May , Force I –.